[MLKG]

Originally Posted by futuristxen

I just love how you think you're Dan Gilbert's accountant all of a sudden. You don't know anything about the money side for the Cavs. Stop acting like you do. Your whole point was that the Cavs would go cheap, and that's been thoroughly refuted by the quotes from the decision makers of the Cavs. So I don't understand why you are pursuing this arguement.

The numbers are all public knowledge. Are you saying they are wrong?

My point isn't that they will go cheap. My point is that they aren't going to make another deal that gives them a substantial long term salary hike. If they make a deal, it will be a smaller one OR a player like Ilgauskas will have to leave as well. My point is that as it pertains to THIS trade, the supposed increase in financial flexibility is nonsense. They already had a ton of expiring money. More than they will use. So adding even more on top of that doesn't really add any value to the trade.

This is an owner who has sunk a TON of money into the team to make it a real NBA franchise. He may not be as flamboyant as Cuban, but he's that type of owner. He's not afraid of doing what it takes to make the best organization he can get.

So I don't know about money, but you know about his fears. Ok.

[futuristxen]

Originally Posted by MLKG

The numbers are all public knowledge. Are you saying they are wrong?

My point isn't that they will go cheap. My point is that they aren't going to make another deal that gives them a substantial long term salary hike. If they make a deal, it will be a smaller one OR a player like Ilgauskas will have to leave as well. My point is that as it pertains to THIS trade, the supposed increase in financial flexibility is nonsense. They already had a ton of expiring money. More than they will use. So adding even more on top of that doesn't really add any value to the trade.

So at the very least you'd agree that this trade doesn't subtract financial flexibility? That's the main thing we're addressing here, because a lot of people think the Cavs did sacrifice financial flexibility. You're just arguing that the flexibility they have won't be used, which is your prediction, but who is to really know besides Danny Ferry and Dan Gilbert.

I think they will make a run at a guy like Michael Redd this summer. And the more cap relief they can offer the Bucks the better.

[Dre™]

Just why in the hell would they make all those trades for expirings, dump them and just sit still? In that case they'd probably want Lebron to leave. Those trades were made for trade leverage next year, not to suddenly be frugal with a top 5 player demanding help.

[futuristxen]

I remember there was a quote from James before the Memphis game and before the new guys had arrived where he said "It's not what I wanted, you know what I wanted(referring to Kidd)". I don't think Lebron is going to be happy if the Cavs stop trying to be better all of a sudden. When you look at the deal, and how none of the contracts have extra years, it's transparently obvious that they still want to be in the game for putting a star next to James in the near future.

But this is a nice stopgap move for this year. Though I doubt we see many of these players long term.

[Brandname]

Originally Posted by futuristxen

I remember there was a quote from James before the Memphis game and before the new guys had arrived where he said "It's not what I wanted, you know what I wanted(referring to Kidd)". I don't think Lebron is going to be happy if the Cavs stop trying to be better all of a sudden. When you look at the deal, and how none of the contracts have extra years, it's transparently obvious that they still want to be in the game for putting a star next to James in the near future.

That's true, but that sounds like it was kind of taken out of context. The rest of the comment sounded pretty lighthearted.

[MLKG]

Originally Posted by futuristxen

So at the very least you'd agree that this trade doesn't subtract financial flexibility? That's the main thing we're addressing here, because a lot of people think the Cavs did sacrifice financial flexibility. You're just arguing that the flexibility they have won't be used, which is your prediction, but who is to really know besides Danny Ferry and Dan Gilbert.

I think they will make a run at a guy like Michael Redd this summer. And the more cap relief they can offer the Bucks the better.

The trade doesn't affect their financial flexiblity at all. By the numbers, they already had enough expirings to trade for Redd AND Mike Miller if they wanted to.

I keep seeing people trying to throw added justification into the trade by saying they got all these players AND improved their financial flexiblity. They didn't. This trade is strictly about players. If the players all suck, Cleveland gets worse, and Gooden and Hughes explode (i know, unlikely): it's a bad trade. There's no silver lining coming from the extra couple million they got in expiring money and this deal really doesn't give them any flexibility to make further deals that they didn't already have.

[MLKG]

Originally Posted by Dre™

Just why in the hell would they make all those trades for expirings, dump them and just sit still? In that case they'd probably want Lebron to leave. Those trades were made for trade leverage next year, not to suddenly be frugal with a top 5 player demanding help.

Because the trade wasn't about expirings. They already had expirings. It was about talent. They are trying to win now. This isn't a trade that clears a path to get better later. It's a win now trade.

[futuristxen]

Originally Posted by MLKG

Because the trade wasn't about expirings. They already had expirings. It was about talent. They are trying to win now. This isn't a trade that clears a path to get better later. It's a win now trade.

You. Are. Wrong.

The trade was to make the team better now. Correct. But they didn't give up any financial flexbility. As you have said. They got better, but they are still on track to get a LOT better in the near future. They got better without hampering any of their plans for this summer and beyond.

That's a good trade. It's a win now and a win later trade.

[Brandname]

Originally Posted by MLKG

Because the trade wasn't about expirings. They already had expirings. It was about talent. They are trying to win now. This isn't a trade that clears a path to get better later. It's a win now trade.

It's good to have different sizes of expiring contracts so that you can package them together in deals that work. If you have 2 expirings of 12 million each, they're going to be less useful then a better mix of expirings when trying to trade for a guys making 18 million per year. Just an example of how it could increase our flexibility.